Study Claims Papyrus That Says Jesus Had a Wife is Real

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

BigTuk:

TWEWYFan:

BigTuk:

Uhm little fact. if the name is actually Jesus: it's a fake. Jesus is not a hebrew name.

Or perhaps the translator is just using Jesus in place of the more correct Joshua because most people in the world recognize him by his Greek name?

No 'expert' would willingly perpetuate an error.

The papyrus was written in Greek and all the earliest copies of the new testament texts we have found are written in Greek. Jesus was the Hellenized version of Yeshua which would have been the original version of his name. It's just the common way of using is name. Regardless of Jesus existence or not that is the name we have. I have used articles from the journal so I would give it credence. Also the missing context could mean that the context was Jesus telling a parable among other things. This in my opinion is a lot of huff over a piece of evidence that is far too fragmentary to really get anything meaningful from it.

Maybe it's a mistranslation and Jesus was actually talking about his Waifu.

I fail to see how Jesus being married has any real impact on peoples faith. Sure it might muck things up for the catholic church, as I believe Jesus not being married might be the base for why their priests are to be celibate. Which in turn is something they came up with when priests wages where bleeding the church dry, and since men with no family can really make do on just bed and board it was one brilliant way to cut costs.

As for the text itself; sure, it might be that Jesus was married. It would hardly be surprising for a Jewish man at that time, especially in his thirties. But the content of the text seems to say that women can be apostles, which in turn would mean they can be ordained as priests. Also something that only really bothers the branches of Christianity that says women can't be priests, because Jesus having no recorded female apostles is (I think) the reasoning for why women can't be priests.
Besides, women have been edited out of the bible quite a few times. Mary Magdalena used to be 3 different women, but the pope didn't like that around the 16th-17th century (might have been earlier), so it was edited out. So debates about women's validity for priesthood among early Christians should come as no surprise.

As it stands this is at most circumstantial evidence to the pile, interesting for sure, but it proves nothing. It's just part of what appears to be a debate.

The only way we'll ever get close to the truth would probably be if someone where to find the original gospels - the ones that make up the Bible - so we can see what they said before centuries of editing. Or an account from the time when Jesus was supposed to be doing his thing, and it had to be the right Jesus too... because he was hardly the only bloke walking around with that name at the time. But solid proof of deeds over 2000 years ago is sadly - as one might imagine - hard to come by. Still, interesting find. But also - like theology in general - pointless, aside from being fuel for a debate that leads nowhere.

Kenjitsuka:
REALLY hard to make out anything from those few measily snippets of text...
I mean, Jesus is probably talking about the topic of women, but beyond that is more "anyone's gues" than clear cut meaning.

By the way, most bibles where written 2-3 centuries after Jesus supposedly died, so if this is around 4th century that makes it perfectly valid.

Agreed. It's obvious a ton is missing from that translation. Literally anything could have been said between those lines. He could confirm or deny a wife. He could be saying "If I had a wife". It could be someone's bad Jesus Fanfiction for all we know.

Sight Unseen:
Even if it's real it's still hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly died so its historical relevance on Jesus itself is small to none. It may have relevance as a historical document of its time and the state of religion at its time, but this isn't proof of anything directly relating to Jesus and whether he even actually existed.

This.

One of the reasons that the New Testament is usually considered reliable is because the books were written within 70 years of Jesus' time... not 700. 70 years is not enough time to cement a myth, 700 is.

That said, I'm pretty interested to find out why this "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" exists.

If it's the message of the Bible that's important to you then this doesn't really matter and if it's the factual nature of it then you've got much better sources of evidence to explain away.

Still, this is interesting.

"Why is it that people had such an incredible reaction to this?"

Maybe because anyone who has built their lives, faith and industry around certain things being absolutely true, is going to lash out when any part of that, no matter how apparently insignificant, is threatened. To prove one 'truth' wrong would open the door to challenge others. Or that's what I think.

Sight Unseen:
Even if it's real it's still hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly died so its historical relevance on Jesus itself is small to none. It may have relevance as a historical document of its time and the state of religion at its time, but this isn't proof of anything directly relating to Jesus and whether he even actually existed.

Not going after what you said specifically- just making a general statement here:

Honestly that can be said about practically anything in the bible involving Jesus. The man died 200 years ago when the bible was first written. A lot- if not almost everything about the man can be pure speculation.

The only thing that probably had definite truth to it was his execution by the Roman capital. And even so the Romans (and their subsequent citizens) did not make that big of a fucking deal about it.

The papyrus itself may be real. But what's written on it may not be the truth. I mean look at all the Lies Pliny and Herodotus wrote in their 'hostories'.

I does however open up some serious thoughts, the Bible was edited greatly so who knows what was put in or taken out.

Well, he was a charismatic cult leader, after all. They do tend to make a few friends and relations along the way, I'd be more surprised if there weren't any bastards of his somewhere.

Right. So it's real.

Now we can throw it on the pile with The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Magdalene, The Gospel of Thomas, The Apocalypse of Peter, and all the other unofficial New Testament documents.

It could very well be the equivalent of fan fiction, but I don't really see it changing much. The church does a good job of hiding anything it suspects makes it look bad.

Alex Co:
'Why does Jesus being married, or not, even matter? Why is it that people had such an incredible reaction to this?'

To me, it doesn't. In fact it would make more sense to me. If Jesus is God incarnate and took on earthly form to experience life as his creation, why not get married? Isn't that a big part, especially back then, of the human experience?

The "first pope" Peter was married, yet somehow the Catholic Church decided it wasn't o.k for the clergy to marry. I studied Biblical history for a couple of years and the amount of revisions the Bible has been through is "thought provoking" to say the least. Some gospels got edited out because they were clearly inconsistent with everything else, in style and tone. Others got pushed out because they were irrelevant. This is probably something that got left on the cutting room floor of one of the council meetings when they were debating points of the Bible.

F'Angus:
The papyrus itself may be real. But what's written on it may not be the truth.

Indeed.
Do not trust a document merely because it is old.
Besides, the text deosn't really tell us much, it's just random snippets of original text.

Muspelheim:
Well, he was a charismatic cult leader, after all. They do tend to make a few friends and relations along the way, I'd be more surprised if there weren't any bastards of his somewhere.

True that.

Sight Unseen:
And just to be clear, I'm skeptical that Jesus even existed since there's no historical record of him other than the Bible and writings from hundreds of years after he supposedly died, even though several prominent historians were alive concurrently.

There is a mention of a "Christus" by Tacitus in The Annals.
Its quick and not much detail is given but it is a non-Bible, non-Christian reference to early Christians and Christ.
Bolded the relevant bit.


This was written after Jesus' death but not centuries after.
At the very least it is interesting.

Sight Unseen:
-snipetty-

And just to be clear, I'm skeptical that Jesus even existed since there's no historical record of him other than the Bible and writings from hundreds of years after he supposedly died, even though several prominent historians were alive concurrently.

eh I dunno, I'm a strong athiest myself, but I'm inclined to believe he did exist, but not as the bible portrays him; myths are born out of fact after all. Basically I like to think he was a Roman era John Lennon, the first recorded major celebrity, if you will. The 12 deciples were real, they were his fans, but they wern't the guys who wrote the disciple gospels. Judas may have been in on it though, selling Jesus out and all.

Basically after Jesus did all this nice stuff and got a bit of a following, did a few major tours, etc etc, Judas got a bit jealous, sold him out, the Romans crucified him, and then eventually what would become the christian church organisation (not Jesus' fanbase though), presumably born out of a sect of radical Romans and "Jews" (for the love of god don't take that the wrong way) used him as a martyr to implement their own beliefs rather than what Jesus actually preached.

Its funny the woman who released this finding seems to be contradicting herself a bit in her quotes but I could be missing some context. I was under the impression that the real issue here was female disciples, not Jesus having a wife (which, if the papyrus proves anything, it proves the former.)

The impact of that could be more denominations accepting women as actual clergy, deacons, priests. But it won't amount to anything.

Put yourselves in our shoes. Lets say you're a Christian but you're also really open to the idea of Jesus having a wife and women being clergy. Even if that was the case, I'd still be really skeptical to change course based on something this small. If you believe, then this stuff is crucial. A piece of paper with a few sentence fragments is not enough to go on and I think God would be more willing to forgive sticking with all the documentation and tradition of the faith as opposed to taking the leap to embrace this scrap of paper (or papyrus, whatever).

Beffudled Sheep:
Snip

This is an interesting quote and something I was not aware existed and appears to be considered genuine after I briefly researched it so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Learned something new today :)

There's still a few problems though. Tacitus was born ~20 years after Jesus died and this writing must have been 60-70 years after Jesus died. Tacitus also lived in Rome so he wasn't actually around where Christianity originated, so he'd likely only be hearing the hearsay and rumours of travellers and immigrants 1-2 generations removed from Jesus himself. Rumours spread quickly and once they're out they're hard to separate from fact.

I still find it really really strange that no writer outside of the Bible ever commented on the fact that Jesus supposedly performed miracles. I mean, if there was some guy wandering around curing uncurable diseases and creating food out of nothing and walking on water, don't you think that would attract a lot of attention and eventually catch the interest of SOMEONE who could write about it?

elvor0:

Sight Unseen:
-snipetty-

And just to be clear, I'm skeptical that Jesus even existed since there's no historical record of him other than the Bible and writings from hundreds of years after he supposedly died, even though several prominent historians were alive concurrently.

eh I dunno, I'm a strong athiest myself, but I'm inclined to believe he did exist, but not as the bible portrays him; myths are born out of fact after all. Basically I like to think he was a Roman era John Lennon, the first recorded major celebrity, if you will. The 12 deciples were real, they were his fans, but they wern't the guys who wrote the disciple gospels. Judas may have been in on it though, selling Jesus out and all.

Basically after Jesus did all this nice stuff and got a bit of a following, did a few major tours, etc etc, Judas got a bit jealous, sold him out, the Romans crucified him, and then eventually what would become the christian church organisation (not Jesus' fanbase though), presumably born out of a sect of radical Romans and "Jews" (for the love of god don't take that the wrong way) used him as a martyr to implement their own beliefs rather than what Jesus actually preached.

I'm just imagining Jesus as a bronze age rock star now, so thank you for that :D

Sight Unseen:
Even if it's real it's still hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly died so its historical relevance on Jesus itself is small to none. It may have relevance as a historical document of its time and the state of religion at its time, but this isn't proof of anything directly relating to Jesus and whether he even actually existed.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding what I meant so Im going to repost my reply to someone else where I tried to clarify.

Since I am an atheist, I think you may have misunderstood my point :). I was saying that this document being legitimate may make it a real historical artifact for its time ( which was well after the time frame where Jesus may have actually lived) as a piece of writing. But it's historical merit for saying anything concrete about Jesus is nonexistant since a) it's way more recent than Jesus so anything it says about him is most likely inaccurate and been passed through dozens of generations of verbal transfer and b) (as far as I know) we dont even know who wrote this or if the person had any authority or real knowledge on the matter so it can't be used as a credible source.

And just to be clear, I'm skeptical that Jesus even existed since there's no historical record of him other than the Bible and writings from hundreds of years after he supposedly died, even though several prominent historians were alive concurrently.

So this papyrus may be a neat artifact that may be a window into the time when it was written, but it says nothing at all about Jesus.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Josephus, for starters, and other non-believer scholars of the day. He saw Jesus as a rabble-rouser and possibly a charlatan.

Nieroshai:

Sight Unseen:
Even if it's real it's still hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly died so its historical relevance on Jesus itself is small to none. It may have relevance as a historical document of its time and the state of religion at its time, but this isn't proof of anything directly relating to Jesus and whether he even actually existed.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding what I meant so Im going to repost my reply to someone else where I tried to clarify.

Since I am an atheist, I think you may have misunderstood my point :). I was saying that this document being legitimate may make it a real historical artifact for its time ( which was well after the time frame where Jesus may have actually lived) as a piece of writing. But it's historical merit for saying anything concrete about Jesus is nonexistant since a) it's way more recent than Jesus so anything it says about him is most likely inaccurate and been passed through dozens of generations of verbal transfer and b) (as far as I know) we dont even know who wrote this or if the person had any authority or real knowledge on the matter so it can't be used as a credible source.

And just to be clear, I'm skeptical that Jesus even existed since there's no historical record of him other than the Bible and writings from hundreds of years after he supposedly died, even though several prominent historians were alive concurrently.

So this papyrus may be a neat artifact that may be a window into the time when it was written, but it says nothing at all about Jesus.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Josephus, for starters, and other non-believer scholars of the day. He saw Jesus as a rabble-rouser and possibly a charlatan.

All of the sources I've read regarding Josephus point to his writings about Jesus being fake.

BigTuk:

TWEWYFan:

BigTuk:

Uhm little fact. if the name is actually Jesus: it's a fake. Jesus is not a hebrew name.

Or perhaps the translator is just using Jesus in place of the more correct Joshua because most people in the world recognize him by his Greek name?

No 'expert' would willingly perpetuate an error.

Piltdown Man, Haeckel's Illustration, The Turk Automaton, and even Nietzsche's authoritative works on Race were all believed by experts of their time to be authentic or legitimate research. Some still think Haeckel's Illustration is legitimate, and it still sees printing in biology textbooks.

Daaaah Whoosh:
From what I learned in my most recent theology class, a lot of the early Christian church had an emphasis on the power of women, but most of it was thrown out by the time anything got organized. I don't see why Jesus wouldn't have a wife, and I certainly don't see how it goes against anything else in the Bible.

That said, though, we have texts predating this one that said Jesus rose from the dead, and also did many of his most famous acts the exact same way at two completely different times in his career. I'm not sure we can count these things as 100% reliable.

Where it really complicates things is if he had children, and why there are no gospels about them, and what being "the son of the Son of God" would entail. France claimed that its royal line was as such. What would it mean for the religion as a whole if there were descendants of Jesus walking around?

The officials of the faith will "investigate it" and ultimately determine it to either be false or that has no relevance to the Word as they see it. Just like they did with all the other Gospels and stories they've edited out of the Bible over the years. The Vatican has made a business out of not changing (despite the new Pope having shown a shocking amount of common sense). I doubt that is going to change any time soon.

Sight Unseen:

Nieroshai:

Sight Unseen:
Even if it's real it's still hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly died so its historical relevance on Jesus itself is small to none. It may have relevance as a historical document of its time and the state of religion at its time, but this isn't proof of anything directly relating to Jesus and whether he even actually existed.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding what I meant so Im going to repost my reply to someone else where I tried to clarify.

Josephus, for starters, and other non-believer scholars of the day. He saw Jesus as a rabble-rouser and possibly a charlatan.

All of the sources I've read regarding Josephus point to his writings about Jesus being fake.

All of the sources I was given up until High School insisted that Columbus discovered the New World. Even if it was some other author, or even if "Paul" was multiple people, or even if Plato didn't write half of the things ascribed to him, those documents are at the very least dated back to those periods and regions, and at the very least were far more intact than this highly redacted paragraph that could easily be yet another parable. That being said, I feel many who immediately discredit secular accounts of Jesus are those who do not want him to have existed, let alone be legitimate. Science at its finest.

4 Love is [...] envy, [...] it is [...] proud. 5 It does [...] dishonor others, it is [...] self-seeking, it is [...] easily angered, it keeps [...] record of wrongs. 6 Love does [...] delight in evil [...] where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they [...] will pass away.

Doesn't at all say what it originally meant to, does it? Imagine if I put that on an ancient piece of cloth.

Nieroshai:
That being said, I feel many who immediately discredit secular accounts of Jesus are those who do not want him to have existed, let alone be legitimate.

Yes, that's far more likely than being unconvinced by a lack of contemporary accounts. We should instead believe he existed because....Ponies?

Science at its finest.

Well, that statement was dishonesty at its finest.

Nieroshai:
[quote="BigTuk" post="7.847185.20897172"]Some still think Haeckel's Illustration is legitimate, and it still sees printing in biology textbooks.

[citation needed]

Of course, one of the issues is the case against Haeckel isn't as strong as people claim it is and the contemporary cases of fraud are largely unvalidated. All it took was for me to google "Haeckel's Illustration" to find that out.

Is this another one of those creationist perpetuations?

Nieroshai:

Sight Unseen:

Nieroshai:
Josephus, for starters, and other non-believer scholars of the day. He saw Jesus as a rabble-rouser and possibly a charlatan.

All of the sources I've read regarding Josephus point to his writings about Jesus being fake.

All of the sources I was given up until High School insisted that Columbus discovered the New World. Even if it was some other author, or even if "Paul" was multiple people, or even if Plato didn't write half of the things ascribed to him, those documents are at the very least dated back to those periods and regions, and at the very least were far more intact than this highly redacted paragraph that could easily be yet another parable. That being said, I feel many who immediately discredit secular accounts of Jesus are those who do not want him to have existed, let alone be legitimate. Science at its finest.

4 Love is [...] envy, [...] it is [...] proud. 5 It does [...] dishonor others, it is [...] self-seeking, it is [...] easily angered, it keeps [...] record of wrongs. 6 Love does [...] delight in evil [...] where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they [...] will pass away.

Doesn't at all say what it originally meant to, does it? Imagine if I put that on an ancient piece of cloth.

The passages about Jesus written by Josephus are almost unanimously considered to be fraudulent insertions by a later Christian writer. This is believed to be true by almost all historians as far back as the 19th century, INCLUDING biblical scholars. So yeah, do I have a right to be skeptical yet?

I've never said outright that *I KNOW* Jesus never existed. That would be an extremely arrogant position to take. I just haven't seen anything in the way of convincing evidence in the form of secular contemporary writing that supports his position from the Bible. The closest we have is that Tacitus blurb provided by a very helpful previous poster but that still doesn't get closer than 2 generations after Jesus died. I'm skeptical and I have a right to be until there's evidence that can conclusively prove it to me that I'm wrong.

Sight Unseen:

Nieroshai:

Sight Unseen:

All of the sources I've read regarding Josephus point to his writings about Jesus being fake.

All of the sources I was given up until High School insisted that Columbus discovered the New World. Even if it was some other author, or even if "Paul" was multiple people, or even if Plato didn't write half of the things ascribed to him, those documents are at the very least dated back to those periods and regions, and at the very least were far more intact than this highly redacted paragraph that could easily be yet another parable. That being said, I feel many who immediately discredit secular accounts of Jesus are those who do not want him to have existed, let alone be legitimate. Science at its finest.

4 Love is [...] envy, [...] it is [...] proud. 5 It does [...] dishonor others, it is [...] self-seeking, it is [...] easily angered, it keeps [...] record of wrongs. 6 Love does [...] delight in evil [...] where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they [...] will pass away.

Doesn't at all say what it originally meant to, does it? Imagine if I put that on an ancient piece of cloth.

The passages about Jesus written by Josephus are almost unanimously considered to be fraudulent insertions by a later Christian writer. This is believed to be true by almost all historians as far back as the 19th century, INCLUDING biblical scholars. So yeah, do I have a right to be skeptical yet?

I've never said outright that *I KNOW* Jesus never existed. That would be an extremely arrogant position to take. I just haven't seen anything in the way of convincing evidence in the form of secular contemporary writing that supports his position from the Bible. The closest we have is that Tacitus blurb provided by a very helpful previous poster but that still doesn't get closer than 2 generations after Jesus died. I'm skeptical and I have a right to be until there's evidence that can conclusively prove it to me that I'm wrong.

I find it interesting how when one's own beliefs and sources are questioned, it's an attack on one's rights to an opinion. It's almost like you have a belief. A worldview. A creed. A... dare I say it... philosophy?
I hold nothing against you, of course. All I mean is, skepticism is warranted on both sides and the burden of proof is on both sides.

Zachary Amaranth:

Nieroshai:
That being said, I feel many who immediately discredit secular accounts of Jesus are those who do not want him to have existed, let alone be legitimate.

Yes, that's far more likely than being unconvinced by a lack of contemporary accounts. We should instead believe he existed because....Ponies?

Science at its finest.

Well, that statement was dishonesty at its finest.

Nieroshai:
[quote="BigTuk" post="7.847185.20897172"]Some still think Haeckel's Illustration is legitimate, and it still sees printing in biology textbooks.

[citation needed]

Of course, one of the issues is the case against Haeckel isn't as strong as people claim it is and the contemporary cases of fraud are largely unvalidated. All it took was for me to google "Haeckel's Illustration" to find that out.

Is this another one of those creationist perpetuations?

Thank you for quoting me fully yet still somehow taking me out of context. Learn some history from both sides of a conflict. You will find you miss a lot otherwise. I was a militant atheist once. I was also judgmental and dismissive.

Nieroshai:
I find it interesting how when one's own beliefs and sources are questioned, it's an attack on one's rights to an opinion. It's almost like you have a belief. A worldview. A creed. A... dare I say it... philosophy?
I hold nothing against you, of course. All I mean is, skepticism is warranted on both sides and the burden of proof is on both sides.

The burden of proof always lies at the feet of the person making the positive claim. If someone claims that Jesus existed, the burden of proof lies with them to show their evidence for why he existed. If he can't show sufficient evidence to be convincing then anyone else has a right to be skeptical of their claims.

You used Josephus as proof. Fine. I then counter-claimed that the Josephus evidence for Jesus was fraudulent. Now I'm making the positive claim so the burden of proof is shifted to me. If you are really interested I could send links supporting my claim but I don't want to bore you or push this too far unless you consent to it.

I think I'm a fair and logical person and if someone could provide proof to me that Jesus was real and actually did miracles then I would believe it. I do think it highly likely that a man named Jesus existed, but to think that he was anything more than a charismatic man running his own little cult following (like many others at the time did and ultimately failed) requires more proof to separate the fact from the myth. And it doesn't help that neither Jesus nor any of his followers or any of contemporaries ever decided to pick up a pen and write anything about it. I realize that literacy was nowhere near as common and that often historical documents are lost or destroyed but you'd think SOMEONE would have written about him while he was actually alive and that it would be preserved in some form.

Skepticism of a claim should be the default position until someone can provide enough evidence to support it.

So either the document is from 500+ years before Jesus or 700+ after? Hilarious. I'll point out that at this point in time it could even be Islamic scripture or hadith (but I'd say significantly less likely since Jesus is typically referenced but not quoted in Islam). What does it matter if the papyrus is real if it's post-antiquity? I can go out and may Papyrus write now and write that Cleopatra was a dude and it'd still be "real" papyrus circa 2014. Let's also not forget that we've had quite a rush of people using ancient papyrus to write bogus texts recently because scholars will pay the big bucks for the name Jesus written on old paper. Especially controversial. But carbon testing the paper does not equal testing the ink's age. Getting accurate ink age is really iffy. Either way it's the 8th century.

This is another emphasis on the fact that professors of history, religion, and other established fields are under constant pressure to develop new research. Not that I have any problem with Jesus having a wife. Aside from the Roman Catholic Church's fixation on bedroom activities being naughty I don't see any precidence for marital relations being "sinful". But then again, the Roman Catholic Church still maintains that Marry never had any more kids despite references to Jesus' siblings even in the accepted texts.

Nieroshai:
Where it really complicates things is if he had children, and why there are no gospels about them, and what being "the son of the Son of God" would entail. France claimed that its royal line was as such. What would it mean for the religion as a whole if there were descendants of Jesus walking around?

As I recall, that's part of the Sunni and Shiite debate, on whether to follow the chosen leaders of the church or the descendants of the chief prophet(in their case, Muhammed, in this case Jesus). I'd like to think we're at that time in human society when we've realized being related to someone doesn't mean a whole lot, but I will admit someone with proven relation to Jesus would probably be able to amass a pretty big following with relative ease.

Sight Unseen:
snip

Almost 100 years is still better than, say 300+ :p
Tacitus was also a senator and would have had access to official Senate records and such.
As for Jesus not being in the writings of any contemporary writers well, there are some possible reasons for that. Its all just guess work of course and theres no evidence to back it up but it is a possibility.
1) Contemporary mentions of him could have been lost like many written works from back then.
2) Jesus could have been seen as just another crackpot cult leader in a small part of the Roman Empire by writers at large and thus nobody but his followers and the people he was annoying bothered to pay any attention to him.
If his movement didn't take off there probably wouldn't be any mention of him anywhere. He seems big today but back then he was just another charismatic street preacher.
And as for the miracles I don't have an explanation other than "they didn't happen". I'm agnostic and don't really believe in the supernatural at all so to me his supposed miracles probably didn't happen.

All just guesswork like I said, don't think I'm saying thats what happened or anything. I personally believe that Jesus existed as a person but thats about it. No son of God, no miracles, just a guy that preached and got a movement around him.

sounds more like a verse about women's equal rights into the kingdom of heaven than it does about being married, I'm sure women did not enjoy the equal rights of men back in that time period which would be a more valid point than anything else really.

Nieroshai:
Thank you for quoting me fully yet still somehow taking me out of context. Learn some history from both sides of a conflict. You will find you miss a lot otherwise. I was a militant atheist once. I was also judgmental and dismissive.

You're addressing a former Catholic. What history do you think I learned from there, exactly, if not the Christian side? It doesn't make it true, nor your "fair and balanced" approach any more valid.

Can you provide me with a contemporary historical account of Jesus? If you can't, it wasn't dismissive. It was factual.

Don't try and shift things on to me because you cannot meet your burden.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here